Dead Space: example of an optimized graphical engine.

Hi all, recently I've bought Dead Space at 2,5€ on Steam. With my nVidia 8800GT with 512MB I can run it all maxed out at 1680x1050 and never go under 80 FPS, often being over 100 FPS! I'm writing this to underline that there is no need to change the video card so often if the developers optimize their graphical engines. Now rF2 is at the top about phisical engine and FFB but the graphical engine... to play with 20 cars I have to set almost all to low and you can imagine how it looks like...

 

Don't forgive that RF2 is not only a graphical engine. That is in first a physical engine. GPU can't work alone, need to wait other process. For games, comparisons are possible only between those of the same kind

 

Quake II runs even faster on my machine, but what of it?

You can't compare an engine designed to render one room at a time to an engine designed to render open environments.

rFactor 2 doesn't offer very good performance - it's below my expectations, but it's up to ISI to fix it. It's not like we can show ISI some first person / third person game and tell them "do it like this". I've been working with Quake engines a little and I can tell you that they're way different than what is needed for a car simulation, even if they look the same to average gamer.

 

Dead Space has a lot of closed spaces, low res textures and no anti aliasing support, moreover, it's a 3 or 4 years old game IIRC. To compare it with a racing simulator released in 2012 is pointless I think.

 

Dead Space was released in '08, a year after the 8800 and when that card was still at it's peak. There is no comparison.

An example of a well optimised graphics engine would be Mass Effect 3 in my opinion, but this is still comparing apples to oranges.

Simple fact is the 8800 is a 4 year old card, it is time to upgrade if you want the best performance.

 

Let's not forget that rF2 is still in development. But yes, I'm hoping the final version will have a really well optimized shaders.

 

please define final version therm

 

Please define "therm"

About Mass Effect 3, look at this screenshot:



There is static shadow from the wall, implemented as lightmap, and there is shadow from a character, casted dynamically.
If character runs into area with static shadow it will still cast dynamic shadow there.

Note that the same thing will happen in Mass Effect 3. This engine isn't that much different from Quake 3 engine when comes to lighting. It just has better artwork and more eye candy, but underneath it's still oldschool - lot's and lots of compromises. That's why it runs fast.

Most of gamers won't even notice these compromises untill someone points them out.

But you won't see such fake shadows in rFactor 2. Therefore framerate is lower in comparison.
Of course theres also night lighting and headlights - these do not cast shadows at all. Most games avoid casting too many shadows. Usually they focus on daylight.

Adding shadows from all light sources may decrease framerate and gamers will not see such decrease as justified.
Doom 3 and all ID Software games since, Unreal Engine 3 based games, Crysis, FEAR - these are games that cast shadows from all light sources. Therefore these must be the most optimized engines out there and still they are often the reasons why gamers update their hardware

 

I know there will be no final version in any software development, literally. However, ISI often use the term "final" or "gold" or "official". So, to me, that is the "final" final. Final definition? Ask "therm".

 

dead space: right name for this thread from wat ive read

 

So, if we are talking about this official release which is targeted for this year (about 6 months after beta release hehe), I may bet that they will not reach a level you hoping in. But of course I hope too

 

Keep in mind that rFactor makes a lot of side calculations for the tires, brakes, suspension and all other mechanical parts. Besides that, those calculations are also made in real time for the other cars and weather impact on these features is also calculated. If you want to have extreme graphics, keep in mind you will get the input lag where NFS Shift 1 and 2 are world famous for.

It is almost impossible unless you have an extremely powerful computer.

 

Sorry, but I cannot agree with you. It is a myth that great gfx must affect simulation especially input lag. By your definition, it is impossible to create good sim with realistic graphics. Rather companies focused on physics are not experienced enough to make modern graphics engine.

And for sure this will not be an issue of rF2 due to processing physics and media by separate processes

 

damn right, very strange original post and as per usual it turns into a Graphics argument....which is seen on 9/10 other threads

 

It's really a shame that the poor coding of SMS on the Shift series made you believe that.

That's a total myth.

 

lol, comparing an FPS to a racing simulator. Comparing a finished game to a beta. Comparing a multi million dollar franchise to a small project.

 

Not to beat a dead horse here, but i dont seem to have the fps issues that others seem to be having, gaming systems get expensive its the nature of the beast, and often need to be updated unlike consoles, try playing battlefield 3 or crysis2, chances are if you cant run those games either, then its time to update your hardware, just my 2cents.....

P.S. my system is....
CPU:1090t@4.0ghz
Ram:4gigs@1333 7-7-7-18
GPU:470gtx SLi'ed
Mobo:Gigabyte 890fxa-ud5

 

Really? So the problem is the update frequency of the input then?

 

No.. problem is how game is written. If physics calculation is tighten in some way with gfx refresh rate, then yes.. it may cause problems.